Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Unchecked “neconservative” power in the United States over the past six years has brought us to bloody international warfare, attempted to establish a technological and executive police state, and helped rush out of America any industry that can be moved to foreign places whose pitiful social conditions generate big profits for a privileged few of our citizens. We have seen the GOP under neocon rule change its flags from the standard of the “old republic” to that of a new empire, the power thrust of an elite corporate globalism. Neocons seem to be at odds with the traditions of the republican party, whose constituency is largely middle class traditionalists of every faith and variety. At the head of the GOP today are wealthy corporate-backed globalists, whose policies primarily revolve around growing rich on the economies of the world. These are a very small minority of the GOP, yet they command most of of the power. Far outnumbering these wealthy interests is middle America, who still hold it a virtue to place “America First” and deal with the rest of the world accordingly.

The neocons hate the Vietnam analogy precisely because it suits the facts so snugly. They don't like to be reminded that their last great crusade to implant "democracy" at gunpoint ended not just in failure, but in a full-fledged military defeat. To even bring up the subject is to be accused of wanting to repeat that result – as if the critics of the policy, rather than the policymakers, are to be held morally responsible for the consequences of the course our rulers have chosen.

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which pumps out tens of millions of dollars to "promote democracy" abroad, is its pivotal agency. For 20 years, it has been headed by Carl Gershman, who broke from the Socialist Party to organize Social Democrats USA, which rallied to the candidacy of liberal Democratic Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, whose staff was a nesting ground of neocons from Richard Perle to Frank Gaffney to Elliott Abrams.

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Leo Strauss, the neocons' "Philosopher," taught that deception is a virtue. The neocons' "godfather," Irving Kristol, reports that Strauss had the "greatest impact" on his conservative thinking. Strauss believed there was "inherent conflict between philosophic truth and the political order." Consequently the "great philosphers prior to the Age of Reason ... took the greatest care in their writing so as not, as the British would say, to 'frighten the horses.'" (Neoconservatism, p. 8) And so, neocons hide the truth from "the horses" and feel entirely justified in their deceptions. The WMD deception is a case in point.

Stephen Bryen—Espionage: (synopsis of full story) In 1979, apparently showed secret documents to Rafiah, of Mossad (Israeli CIA). He denied having accessed the documents but refused to be polygraphed, and his finger prints were found on them. Appointed in 1981 to DOD by Richard Perle , he received Top Secret ("NATO/COSMIC”) clearance. In 1988, Bryen arranged for state-of-the-art klystrons to be released for export to Israel against the wishes of DOD. In 2001, with the support of Paul Wolfowitz , Bryen was appointed a member of the China Commission (in part concerned with Israel's transfer of advanced technology to China).

The most fascinating aspect of this whole controversy is the number of people it potentially involves. From elected officials in Congress to top conservative activists, the Abramoff lobbyist sham could ravage the neocons far worse than the CIA-leak affair. It could also take a top Democrat or two down as well.

The Abramoff saga is more than one sordid tale of an insider gone wild; it's a vivid narrative of how business is done in Washington. From legal maneuvering to backroom bribes and pay-offs, big business runs Washington politics and Abramoff is just one in a long line of power hungry lobbyists.

In a new indication that the balance of power within the administration of President George W. Bush has tilted strongly in favor of the realists, Washington's influential ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, has disclosed that Bush has authorized him to open direct talks with Iran about stabilizing Iraq.

The announcement, which came in an interview with Newsweek magazine, marks a major change in policy. The two countries have not held direct talks since mid-May 2003, shortly after the U.S. ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, when the influence of neoconservatives was at its zenith.

Sunday, November 27, 2005

That goes against what I regard as the fundamental reason for the war: the war was led by neoconservatives and fought in the interests of Israel, at least as Likudniks envision Israel's interests. It is all well-documented, though the neocons imply that Israeli interests coincide with those of the United States. But as I point out in my article on the subject — and this fact is on the public record, too — the original idea for the war was conceived in Israel. Moreover, the war achieved the goal hoped for by the Likudniks — destabilization of the Middle East.

Three militant neocon pundits spoke vehemently against the Bush administration’s gesture to include American Muslim leaders in discussions on how to deal with the rising tide of anti-Americanism and restore the level of trust and support the United States enjoyed prior to the missteps the administration took at the neocons’ urging.

Jack Murtha is no antiwar peacenik. He is simply not infected with the neocon illness of total war dementia, although he does not cringe at the prospect of American imperialism and empire building. Adamo would have us believe Murtha is a liberal—and considering the degree of fascistic reaction emanating from the Arab-hating and misanthropic neocons and their supporters, the garden variety hawkishness of Murtha may actually be considered a form of liberalism.

Who launched the current FBI investigation of AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), Israel’s principal lobby in the United States? The original version had it that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was told about the investigation soon after President George W. Bush began his first term of office. That was in early 2001.

According to a story by Laura Rozen in The Nation of July 14, 2005, President Bush, after long refusing to meet with PLO chief Yasser Arafat, had decided to meet Arafat at the September 2001 opening session of the United Nations General Assembly “if progress were made in high level talks between Palestinians and the Israelis.” Citing a Sept. 9, 2001 article by Jane Perlez in The New York Times, Rozen said that, after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush/Arafat meeting never took place. Rice, reportedly concerned over the leak of sensitive administration intelligence in the Perlez article, then demanded an FBI investigation. This meant that the investigation began in early September 2001.

Friday, November 25, 2005

Globalization was antithetical to the President Bush/neo-conservative value of American exceptionalism. An administration made up of many who thought President George H.W. Bush's "new world order" was naive in its world view, both in protecting U.S. interests and guaranteeing future U.S. economic security, could not tolerate the slow erosion of the power of the nation-state which was implicit as globalization sped forward.

The massive theft, which I wrote about here, epitomizes the operating strategy of the neoconservative gang that Black did so much to promote and propagandize for: like Richard Perle, another Hollinger executive who pillaged the company, Black fattened his bank balance even as the public purse was drained on the War Party's behalf.

Thursday, November 24, 2005

The present study considers four such figures: David Wurmser and Frederick Fleitz, both formerly employed in the State Department office of the Madman with the Handlebar Mustache, John Bolton; Marc Grossman, a longtime State Department official recently turned lobbyist; and Eric Edelman, like Grossman a former ambassador to Turkey, longtime Cheneyite, and current recess appointee to Doug Feith's old position as No. 3 in the Pentagon.

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Cheney's decision to harp more on the prospect of an al-Qaeda takeover of Iraq suggests that he and his neo-conservative supporters believe that prospect to be the strongest barrier to a total collapse of their Iraq policy. In a series of articles and media appearances over the last several days, prominent neo-conservatives such as AEI fellow Richard Perle, and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, have made the same argument.

To seek enlightenment on things neoconservative, I rang up four of the biggest names in the punditry business and asked them the same questions. Rich Lowry is editor of National Review. Paul Weyrich is chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation. Paul Gigot is editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. And George Will is the famous syndicated columnist:

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

As for Bush, a retreat from Iraq and defeat there would mean a failed presidency. The Bush Doctrine of employing U.S. power to unhorse dictators and impose democracy will be dead.

America will adopt a new non-interventionist foreign policy, except where vital U.S. interests are imperiled. The tragedy is that we did not do, voluntarily, 15 years ago, what a foolish, failing neoconservative foreign policy may now force us to do in the not-too-distant future.

A military coalition has launched itself into an unbridled exploitation of the world’s resources and energy reserves. Fuelled by neo-conservatives, it has increased its attacks, practicing all forms of interference, from forcing changes in regimes to colonial-style expansionism. This coalition continually violates the principles of international law as they were established by the conference of the Hague and laid out in the San Francisco Charter.

Monday, November 21, 2005

It is common outside America to regard neoconservatism as synonymous with the Republican right. In fact, its roots lie mostly on the left. The original neoconservatives - also nicknamed Socialists for Nixon - were anti-communist leftists and liberals who became alienated from the Democratic party when it endorsed the anti-Vietnam war candidate George McGovern for president in 1972. Appalled by what they saw as the refusal of liberals to defend their values and confront totalitarianism in the guise of Soviet power, the neoconservatives drifted to the right, contributing to a broader political realignment that swept Ronald Reagan to power.

Sunday, November 20, 2005

Former Department of Defense adviser Richard Perle, the immensely influential godfather of the neo-conservative movement, launched a public broadside against the alleged corruption of the Saudi Arabian government Thursday, and called on the United States to cease its friendly relations with Riyadh.

The neocons' main antagonists in the successful effort to get the United States to start shooting in the campaign to contain Saddam were the so-called "paleoconservatives," such as Pat Buchanan and Joseph Sobran, who since the end of the Cold War had been advocating a less activist American foreign policy. Indeed, neoconservative columnists like Rosenthal have accused the two of "anti-Semitism" for questioning whether there is a compatibility between the American interests and that of the Likud government.

Friday, November 18, 2005

Hollinger's board includes Richard Perle, 911 Commission member and former Illinois Governor Jim Thompson, and Henry Kissinger. Incoming Deputy Attorney General and US Attorney for Eastern Virginia Paul McNulty has probed deals involving the Pentagon, Boeing, Perle's Trireme Partners (a joint Perle-Kissinger investment firm), and Hollinger. Perle as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board recommended the Air Force's use of Boeing planes for replacement fuel tankers over Airbus. His Trireme Partners had received an influx of Boeing capital.

Abdel Nour's other links include the World Lebanese Organization, which advocates Israel's re-occupation of south Lebanon. In 2000, he and neocon Daniel Pipes composed the policy paper "Ending Syria's Occupation of Lebanon: the US Role" and together co-author the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin. The bulletin is a project of the neocon Middle East Forum and is a frequent resource for American intelligence agencies.

Although Pipes does not explain what he meant by political naiveté, it is not difficult to visualize that he may be taking a salvo at France for her opposition to join the neocon-managed war party in its invasion of Iraq! In Secretary Rumsfeld’s words, France and Germany, therefore, belonged to the “Old Europe.”

You’d think, to hear these folks, that “policy differences” were innocent opinions, like the debate over Shakespeare’s authorship, even if they are battles over life-and-death exercises of military force. Libby, even more than his boss Cheney, has been part of the neoconservative cabal that was hankering for war with Iraq long before George W. Bush was even a candidate for the presidency. It comes as no surprise that they should resort to underhanded tactics against anyone they regard as an enemy.

Thursday, November 17, 2005

One of the things that stands out in the Neoconned books is that we apply moral standards to all but ourselves in how this nation conducts itself, whether in international business, law, war, or in meddling in the affairs of other nations, especially if those nations have valuable natural resources like natural gas or oil.

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

If you like handicapping horses, baseball, football, and the Bush team's chances of mass indictments at the hands of Patrick Fitzgerald, you'll love the inside information which Shirin Neshat of Sarbazan provides for John Pike's Global Security.org think tank on the structure of the Persian military units the West will encounter if a few Neo-Con lunatics get their way. Add to that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Baseej suicide waves, and one hopes for some sanity in Washington before catastrophe ensues.

Ms. Neshat's new Sarbazan home page is dedicated to her father, the late General Ali Neshat, Commander of the Shah's Imperial Guard, and may be seen at:http://www.alineshat.com/sarbazanmain.htm.

As everyone waits for Patrick J. Fitzgerald's other shoe to drop – perhaps on Karl Rove's neck, maybe on a few more members of the neocon coven in the vice president's office – "cutting and running" is perhaps too kind a gloss to put on it. They aren't just running away from the war they voted for and never publicly questioned until now – they're racing as fast as they can away from the core cadre of the War Party in this administration, i.e., the neoconservatives, who are now politically radioactive.

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

In a hearing last week in the case against Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, two former AIPAC staffers, Judge T.S. Ellis of the U.S. District Court in Alexandria ruled in favor of government arguments that recordings and transcripts of tapped conversations involving the defendants include material that would be harmful to the national interest if revealed. Ellis said he would determine what material the defense can use and what material it can not access.

The neo-cons' newest confidential-memo-brought-to-light says that another devastating terrorist attack on American soil could “validate” the President's war on terror and allow Bush to “unite the country” in a “time of national shock and sorrow .” This would naturally boost their party's ratings, which are currently in the gutter along with their moral values.

With the fledgling Fox News network, the Standard soon emerged as the key leg in a synergistic triangle of neoconservative argumentation: you could write a piece for the magazine, talk about your ideas on Fox, pick up a paycheck from Kristol or from AEI. It was not a way to get rich, but it sustained a network of careers that might otherwise have shriveled or been diverted elsewhere. Indeed, it did more than sustain them, it gave neocons an aura of being “happening” inside the Beltway that no other conservative (or liberal) faction could match. Murdoch had refuted the otherwise plausible arguments in Norman Podhoretz’s eulogy.

Safe harbor for neoconservatives in Washington and elsewhere is going to be hard to find. They plotted and with the help of the Congress, executed an ill-conceived war, dreaming of chocolate candy tossed by beaming children and beautiful women. They dreamed of spontaneous and pro-American democracy in an oil rich country occupying the sweet spot of the Middle East. They dreamed such lovely dreams.

Monday, November 14, 2005

Norman Podhoretz, the grand daddy of the Straussian neocons, expends a few thousand words in an attempt to convince us George Bush didn't lie when he told us Saddam had a WMD program and was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden. "Among the many distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsifications that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in particular stands out above all others. This is the charge that George W. Bush misled us into an immoral and/or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed," writes Podhoretz in the December issue of Commentary (posted in advance on the Commentary website).

Sunday, November 13, 2005

Once again, murder and mayhem directed against innocent Arabs serves as an object lesson—the people of the Middle East (that is to say Muslim people) have two choices: either they accept the Likudite-neocon plan to cut their countries into malleable chunks based along ethnic and religious lines, and endure the rule of hand-picked puppets and monarchs, or they will suffer the machinations of al-Zarqawi, the dead cretin who is now embodied in a counter-gang black op of endless violence and mass murder designed to push Iraqis—and Jordanians, eventually ordinary Syrians and Iranians—into supporting the dictatorships installed in their country. Of course, regardless of these covert ops, the Iraqi resistance (and soon the Syrian and Iranian resistance) will continue to struggle to evict foreigners and occupation forces from their country.

Thursday, November 10, 2005

In foreign policy, Bush I was an internationalist out to build a “New World Order” after the Cold War. However, post-9/11, Bush II converted to a neoconservatism that calls for unilateral American intervention in the Middle East and the Islamic world, to bring down dictators and establish democracy.

True to the neoconservative creed, Bush launched a global crusade for democracy that is now bringing ever closer to power Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Syria, and Shia fundamentalists in Baghdad and Basra.

As Wilson explains, these plans were hatched by Richard Perle and his study group some years back. And now, as a result, "... American boys and girls are dying for Israel." Wilson does not specify that Richard Perle or Ken Adelman, whom he also mentions, are Jewish. That much is understood. On the left, "neocon" has become code for "Jew." And as with World War II, it is the Jews who have prodded us into war.

CNN's Christiane Amanpour, married to Democratic neo-con Jamie Rubin, Madeleine Albright's one-time water carrier, is now reporting from France on the "seriousness" of the situation, likening it to the Algerian Civil War and leftist riots in 1968. She also referred to riots on one of the islands off of France but did not seem to recall its name. The island is Corsica, which has seen violence from an independence movement.

With Amanpour's scripts obviously being pre-approved by CNN's Washington head honcho Wolf Blitzer, a one time reporter for the Jerusalem Post and a former editor for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) newsletter The Near East Report, look for CNN to hype the situation in France and elsewhere as a European "Intifada."

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Like many Americans, I’ve grown sad and frustrated at the triumph of neoconservative foreign policy. It was sold to Americans not merely on the basis of lies, but also by means of bumper-sticker slogans trotted out – and dutifully absorbed and repeated by shills determined to live down to every caricature of conservatism ever devised – by a White House that cynically exploited ordinary people’s patriotic inclinations in order to prosecute a war whose aims remain obscure to this day.

Wolfowitz, who supports apartheid Israel -- with its immigration almost completely limited to Jews -- supports the efforts to de-Europeanize Russia, Byelorussia (White Russia), and Ukraine, three of the Whitest major nations on Earth. Vast areas of Russia -- the largest country on Earth -- have been composed almost exclusively of White heritage for thousands of years. Moscow alone, a city of 12 million, has more White people in it than the whole of Sweden and Denmark combined and is the most European of any of the world's largest cities.

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Scooter, the Architect of the NeoCon Strategic Battle Plan and Cheney's chief cheerleader, needed all these connections, so he could sneak around with no one watching him. Thanks to American hero Patrick Fitzgerald, now we'll see more of this invisible Architect's clever handiwork. And Karl is left still spinning in the wind. Not a bad week, Mr. Fitzgerald!

Monday, November 07, 2005

1. A literalist hermeneutic
2. The Jews remain God's chosen people
3. The Jews have a divine right to the land of the Middle East
4. Jerusalem is their exclusive capital
5. The Jewish temple must be rebuilt
6. The Arabs are the enemies of God's people
7. The world will end soon in the great battle of Armageddon but Christians who support Israel will escape.

Sarkozy has strong links to the Likud Party in Israel and the neo-cons in the Bush administration and the Blair government in London. The neo-con media conglomerates such as Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation and the Hollinger Group are blaming the violence on France's relative tolerance of its large Muslim population. The neo-con media is also playing up reports that French rioters are proclaiming that they are turning Paris into "Baghdad."

Lewis Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Richard Cheney and former attorney for fugitive financier Marc Rich, testifies at a March 1, 2001 hearing on the Rich pardon by the House Committee on Government Reform.

The persistence of the Iraq insurgency forced the neo-conservative movement to address the question of 'nation building.' When American armies initially invaded Iraq the administration of President George W. Bush stated that U.S. forces would be greeted as 'liberators,' but the protracted guerrilla warfare now in process altered the dialogue. The major question was no longer should America invade, but how to build a stable nation in Iraq.

Sunday, November 06, 2005

Neo-Conservatism: The Cult of American Ascendancy or Moral Bankruptcy?

By Habib Siddiqui

Al-Jazeedrah, November 4, 2005

It is said that the last two political philosophers who both influenced world events and shared many of the worldviews of today's neocons were Nicolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), who published "The Prince" in Italy in 1515, and Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels (who inspired a young Adolf Hitler with his magazine "Ostara"). Neo-conservatism, as a strategy and philosophy of government owes it to them.

The modern-day neo-conservatism comes from the far left - a group historically identified as former Trotskyites,[1] and was introduced to America in the 1960s by Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. The ideas of President Theodore Roosevelt (1901-09) were quite similar to many of the views of present-day neocons.

The old conservatism relied on tradition and history. It was moderate and slow or careful to change. The new or “neo” conservatism, under Straussians, is not slow or moderate, but dynamic, destructive, diehard and reactionary in every sense of the term. Thus, there’s nothing “neo” about neoconservative views, and surely nothing conservative. Yet today’s neocons have been able to hijack the conservative movement by claiming themselves as vanguards of a new or modern form of conservatism.

Both Paul Wolfowitz (who now runs the World Bank) and Abram Shulsky, director of the Office of Special Plans (OSP), received their doctorates under Strauss in 1972. [The OSP was created specifically to find the evidence of WMDs and/or links with Al Qaeda, piece it together, and seal the case for the invasion of Iraq.] During the Cold War, Shulsky’s area of expertise was Soviet disinformation techniques, which it seems he was able to modify zealously in the OSP in cooking up the case against Saddam.[2]

Others closely linked with neoconservative views are: Richard Perle (Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and Member of the Defense Policy Board), Douglas Feith (former undersecretary of defense for policy at the Pentagon – and overseer of the OSP) and Elliott Abrams (special assistant to the president focusing on Middle East affairs) – all former aides to (late) Senator “Scoop” Jackson (d. 1983), who is considered an icon figure among neoconservatives. They are all ardent Likudnik Zionists who played major roles in designing America’s new strategy of preemptive war. Other notable neocons include: William Bennett (author of Book of Virtues); Michael Ledeen of the AEI; former CIA Director James Woolsey; Gary Schmitt [director of the influential Project for the New American Century (PNAC)], Norman Podhoretz, Samuel Huntington, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney Jr. (CSP); Robert Kagan (PNAC); William Kristol (editor of Weekly Standard); Stephen Cambone (Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence), “Scooter” Libby (Cheney’s former chief of staff, lately indicted on five counts), John Hannah (Libby’s former assistant, now promoted as Cheney’s national security adviser), John Bolton (US ambassador to the UN); (Defense Secretary) Donald Rumsfeld and (Vice President) Dick Cheney. The godfather of modern-day neo-conservatism is Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, who set the stage in 1983 with his publication Reflections of a Neoconservative.

The neocon institutions and publications include: American Enterprise Institute(AEI), Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), Center for Security Policy (CSP), Hudson Institute, Ethics and Public Policy Center, Bradley Foundation, Heritage Foundation, Jamestown Institute, Smith Richardson Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation, Project for the New American Century (PNAC), Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies; Commentary, National Review, New Republic, National Interest, Public Interest, Policy Review, Washington Times, Weekly Standard and Front Page Magazine.

In order to understand today’s U.S. policies and the subsequent problems facing the nation for years to come, it is, therefore, important to recognize the philosophic connection between modern-day neoconservatives, Leo Strauss and Machiavelli.

In his book “The Prince,” Machiavelli describes two types of governments – monarchies and republics. His focus, however, is on the former. The most controversial aspect of his thesis is that some “virtues” will lead to a prince’s destruction, whereas some “vices” will allow him to survive. He also argues that it is better for a prince to be feared than loved and that the prince should know how to be deceitful when it suits purpose.

Leo Strauss was a Jewish émigré from Germany who arrived in the United States in 1938 and later taught political philosophy at several major universities before his death in 1973.[3] Like many other philosophically-inclined German students of the time, he attended the lectures of Martin Heidegger, a very controversial philosopher of the Nazi era.[4] Strauss was preoccupied with the goal of figuring out how to prevent America from falling into the same trap of a decline into fascism that Germany had. Ironically, he himself fell into the trap of “fascistic ends-justifies-the-means” thinking.[5]

One of Strauss’s books was Thoughts on Machiavelli in which he approved of Machiavelli’s philosophy. Strauss believed that the person who whispers in the ear of the ruler is more important than the ruler. He was consistently suspicious of anything claiming to be a solution to an old political or philosophical problem. He was very skeptical of "progress.” He spoke of the danger in trying to ever finally resolve the debate between rationalism and traditionalism in politics.

Professor Shadia Drury of University of Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada is among the world's foremost scholars on the history, philosophy and politics of neo-conservatism. She is the author of the acclaimed books Leo Strauss and the American Right (1998) and The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss (1988). Her recent article “Saving America: Leo Strauss and the neoconservatives” is very useful to understand the subject. There, Drury also offers an insight into the minds of the disciples of Strauss: “The trouble with the Straussians is that they are compulsive liars. But it is not altogether their fault. Strauss was very pre-occupied with secrecy because he was convinced that the truth is too harsh for any society to bear; and that the truth-bearers are likely to be persecuted by society - specially a liberal society - because liberal democracy is about as far as one can get from the truth as Strauss understood it.”[6] Is it any difficult to understand why the neocons lied about WMDs to justify the invasion of Iraq?

Strauss was an unabashed critic of modern liberalism and was interested in governments taking a greater interest in the problem of human excellence and political virtue. Through his writings, Strauss constantly raised the question of how, and to what extent, freedom and excellence can coexist.[7]

Drury says, “Strauss's disciples … are afraid to speak the truth openly, lest they are persecuted by the vulgar many who do not wish to be ruled by them. This explains why they are eager to misrepresent the nature of Strauss's thought. They are afraid to reveal that Strauss was a critic of liberalism and democracy, lest he be regarded as an enemy of America. So, they wrap him in the American flag and pretend that he is a champion of liberal democracy for political reasons - their own quest for power. The result is that they run roughshod over truth as well as democracy.”[8] Strauss, According to Drury, was “the enemy of liberty in general. It was for love of America that he wished to save her from her disastrous love affair with liberty...”

Are we, therefore, surprised to see what neocons - Richard Perle and David Frum (former speech writer for President Bush) – advocated in their book "An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror"?[9] Following the footstep of Strauss, they advocated establishing a government database (including national identity card with biometric data for everyone) and surveillance system that would dwarf the worst form of statism that the world has ever seen.

Strauss had a "huge contempt" for secular democracy, and so do his disciples. Drury says, "Secular society in their view is the worst possible thing, because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, precisely those traits that may promote dissent that in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability to cope with external threats.”

Strauss believed Nazism to be a nihilistic reaction to the ungodly and liberal nature of the Weimar Republic. He wanted religion to impose moral law on the masses who would otherwise be out of control. At the same time, he stressed that the rulers need not be bound by it.

In his approach to philosophical texts, Strauss taught that there was the distinction between 'esoteric' and 'exoteric' readings. He maintained that philosophers very often concealed their true thoughts beneath an exoteric teaching; only a careful study would reveal the true or esoteric teaching. Primarily, philosophers did this to protect their own lives, and to guard against the detrimental effects of philosophy upon people who cannot understand it fully.

Strauss, according to Drury, was not as obscure or as esoteric as his admirers pretend. There were certain indisputable themes in his work. The most underlying theme was the distinction between the ancients and the moderns. Drury writes, “According to Strauss, ancient philosophers (such as Plato) were wise and wily, but modern philosophers (such as Locke and other liberals) were foolish and vulgar. The ancients denied that there is any natural right to liberty. Human beings are born neither free nor equal. The natural human condition is not one of freedom, but of subordination. And in Strauss's estimation, they were right in thinking that there is only one natural right - the right of the superior to rule over the inferior - the master over the slave, the husband over the wife, and the wise few over the vulgar many.”[10] This dichotomy requires "perpetual deception" between the rulers and the ruled, according to Drury.

In a 1999 essay titled "Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence (By Which We Do Not Mean Nous)" (in Greek philosophy the term nous denotes the highest form of rationality), Shulsky and Schmitt, two neocons, argue that Strauss's idea of hidden meaning "alerts one to the possibility that political life may be closely linked to deception. Indeed, it suggests that deception is the norm in political life, and the hope, to say nothing of the expectation, of establishing a politics that can dispense with it is the exception."[11]

Strauss' attitude toward foreign policy was downright Machiavellian. "Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat," Drury wrote in her book. "Following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured." "Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in," says Drury. The idea, in her words, simply translates into an "aggressive, belligerent foreign policy," of the kind, scripted by neocon think tanks like the PNAC and AEI, which has become the hallmark of the Bush Administration since 9/11.[12]

Drury wrote, “Hitler had a profound contempt for the masses - the same contempt that is readily observed in Strauss and his cohorts. But when force of circumstances made it necessary to appeal to the masses, Hitler advocated lies, myths, and illusions as necessary pabulum to placate the people and make them comply with the will of the Fürer. Strauss's political philosophy advocates the same solution to the problem of the recalcitrant masses. … The trouble is that neoconservatives have zero tolerance for human vices or follies, and as a result, they are unwilling to give liberty a chance. … Strauss had no objections to democracy as long as a wise elite, inspired by the profound truths of the ancients, was able to shape, invent, or create the will of the people.”[13]

Let us next look at the views Michael Ledeen, who is one of the foremost theorists of the neoconservative movement today. Like his spiritual mentor Leo Strauss, he is a great admirer of Machiavelli. His 1999 book - Machiavelli on Modern Leadership - offers some clue to his mind and why he thinks that Machiavelli’s iron rules are as timely and important today as five centuries ago. In his more recent book, The War Against the Terror Masters, he reiterated those beliefs. He specifically praises: “Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad… Our enemies … fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there.” Ledeen concludes: “They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.”

In Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, Ledeen praises a business leader for correctly understanding Machiavelli: “There are no absolute solutions. It all depends. What is right and what is wrong depends on what needs to be done and how.” This is a clear endorsement of situation ethics.

Ledeen, like Strauss, believes man is basically evil and cannot be left to his own desires. Therefore, he must have proper and strong leadership, just as Machiavelli argued. Only then can man achieve good, as Ledeen explains: “In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to ‘enter into evil.’ This is the chilling insight that has made Machiavelli so feared, admired and challenging…we are rotten.” Ledeen argues, “It’s true that we can achieve greatness if, and only if, we are properly led.” In other words, man is so stupid that they are incapable of ethical, moral and spiritual greatness without being dictated by a powerful authoritarian leader.

Since the publication of his book Universal Fascism in 1972, Ledeen has been accused of being an apologist for fascism, which to him was the ‘Revolution of the 20th century.’ He said that the fascist state was “a generator of energy and creativity.” He criticized Mussolini not for being revolutionary enough; Mussolini “never had enough confidence in the Italian people to permit them a genuine participation in fascism.”

Ledeen and the neocons, like their mentors Machiavelli and Strauss, recognize the importance of exploiting religion for political means. According to Ledeen, religious zeal is especially necessary when force is used to promote an agenda.[14] Ledeen explains why God must always be on the side of advocates of war: “Without fear of God, no state can last long, for the dread of eternal damnation keeps men in line, causes them to honor their promises, and inspires them to risk their lives for the common good.” Ledeen adds: “Without fear of punishment, men will not obey laws that force them to act contrary to their passions. Without fear of arms, the state cannot enforce the laws.”[15]

Today’s neocons are mostly Likudnik Zionists. They are for legitimizing illegitimate, UN-defying claims of the Zionist state. They want entire Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria to remain with Israel. But such cannot happen without emotional support from Christian majority, especially its evangelical sector that now number 70 million in the USA. Following the Straussian strategy, therefore, they have tied their unholy knots with Christian evangelicals, who in turn have become their most passionate supporters in promoting the immoral doctrine of preemptive war. They are all agog for the US to use force to change regimes and altering the map of the Middle East.[16] They are also the best supporters of the rogue state outside Israel.

Neocons crave for an external threat to bring into fruition their agenda of world hegemony. Following Strauss, Ledeen thus writes: “…of course, we can always get lucky. Stunning events from outside can providentially awaken the enterprise from its growing torpor, and demonstrate the need for reversal, as the devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 so effectively aroused the U.S. from its soothing dreams of permanent neutrality.” Ledeen calls Pearl Harbor a “lucky” event for waking up the sleeping giant. The PNAC, as one may recall, as recently as September 2000, likewise, anticipated the necessity for a “Pearl Harbor” type event that would arouse Americans to back up their ruthless plan for global hegemony, while smashing any potential “rival.”

One can only ponder if there is any similarity between 9/11 and Parl Harbor. One thing for sure that 9/11 has revitalized the neoconservative movement and catapulted it to a brief but heady hegemony over the foreign policy of the United States. Soon after 9-11, Rumsfeld and others neocon hawks argued for an immediate attack on Iraq, even though Iraq was not implicated in the attacks.[17] Michael Ledeen and other neoconservatives are already lobbying for war against Iran and Syria.

And there are those who see 9/11 as the 1933 Reichstag fire of our time.[18] That arson attack on the Weimer Republic was blamed on the communists and not the Nazis. It eventually solidified Hitler’s hold on Germany.

To sum up, neocons: (1) want the US to be the world's unchallenged superpower; (2) share slavish and unwavering support for Israel and have close ties with the Likud Party; (3) support Likud’s agenda to retain Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel; (4) support American unilateral action; (5) support preemptive strikes to remove perceived threats to US security; (6) promote the development of an American empire; (7) equate American power with the potential for world peace; (8) seek to democratize the Arab world; (9) push regime change in states deemed threats to the US or its allies; (10) want the US to fight Israel’s proxy war to make the region safer for Israel.[19]

Neocons also agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution - violent as well as intellectual. They venerate Leo Strauss. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means. They express no opposition to the welfare state. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run, i.e., by the elite (who would whisper into the ears of the ruler). They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.

Final Words:

Neocons are the most powerful, the most organized, and the best-funded ideologues in the western world. They also run the most sought-after reactionary think tanks and foundations. That is why they have been able to occupy important positions since the Reagan days and continue to play a significant role within the Bush (Jr.) Administration and the Republican Party.

As has been demonstrated by their recent actions, especially the Libby case, there is no doubt that neocons don’t mind conning America to bring about their utopian ideals. It is they who are the greatest threat to the US and the rest of our planet. It is ironic that they have decided to conquer the world in the name of liberty and democracy, when they have so little regard for either. Their movement represents the epitome of fascism. Their ideology is based on flawed notion of ‘clash of civilizations’ – a sure recipe for more war, more violence, more death and destruction, and more disasters. It would neither make America any secure nor bring peace into our world. It would only rob us of our humanity. Sooner we dump the champions of this morally bankrupt philosophy the better we are to delay the clock of Armageddon from ticking.

Dr. Habib Siddiqui, (saeva@aol.com)

[1] Irving Kristol wrote in 1983 that he was “proud” to have been a member of the Fourth International in 1940. Other former Trotskyites that are now neocons include James Burnhamd and Max Kampelman.

[4] Strauss is also accused of being a life-long collaborator and promoter of Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt. (See, e.g., Jeffrey Steinberg’s article: “Synarchism: The Fascist Roots of the Wolfwitz Cabal,” Executive Intelligence Review, May 20, 2003.)

[5] http://www.buzzflash.com/hartmann/05/08/har05008.html

[6] http://evatt.org.au/publications/papers/112.html

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss

[8] Op. cit.

[9] Lately David Frum led media barrage against Supreme Court nomination of Ms. Miers, which forced her to withdraw her nomination (October 27, 2005).

[10] Op. cit.

[11] See also Seymour Hersh’s report on neo-conservatism in the New Yorker magazine, where he makes similar conclusions.

[12] Jim Lobe, http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/

[13] http://evatt.org.au/publications/papers/112.html

[14] Ledeen says, “It’s been true throughout history and remains true today, each side of major conflicts invokes God’s approval. Our side refers to a “crusade;” theirs to a “holy Jihad.” Too often wars boil down to their god against our God. It seems this principle is more a cynical effort to gain approval from the masses, especially those most likely to be killed for the sake of the war promoters on both sides who have power, prestige and wealth at stake.”

[15] See Congressman Ron Paul’s analysis, op. cit., for a detailed analysis of these ideas.

[16] Norman Podhoretz argued “changes of regime are the sine qua non throughout the region.” He suggested that “At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as ‘friends’ of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority.” [In praise of Bush doctrine, Commentary, September 2002]

[19] The Christian Science Monitor has an excellent piece “Neocon 101,” which is worth reading to understand this philosophy. Congressman Ron Paul’s addresses the U.S. House of Representatives –“Neo-conned” – dated July 10, 2003, is also very informative and useful.

Friday, November 04, 2005

What would the neocons do without the David Dukes and Lyndon LaRouches of this world? To say nothing of Hitler? By associating these names with the "persecution" of poor innocent little Scooter, who's just a nice Jewish boy who went to Yale, Libby's neocon fan club achieves its purpose: smearing Fitzgerald, albeit indirectly. The clear implication of all this is that the prosecution itself must be motivated by some unacknowledged agenda: after all, if they're just getting him on what is a "technicality," according to Kay Bailey Hutchison, then that leaves plenty of room for inferring that this is an American version of the Dreyfus case.

Even those Democrats participating in the event who have been critical of the neocons did not express opposition to the global democracy project itself. They just seemed to suggest that unlike the neocons, they would be able to achieve it at less cost, especially in military terms, for the U.S. Call it "neocon lite."

Obama and Voinovich are but two senators, but unfortunately, with the exception of perhaps two or three members of the House, they represent the strongest opposition in Congress to the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) – the neocons whose blueprint is being used by the Bush administration in its endeavor to dominate the planet. Indeed, the Democrats have similar goals of their own. The title of their plan, which was unveiled during the Kerry campaign for president, is "Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy" [.pdf]. The Democrats' paper uses the tragedy of 9/11 as a starting point.

Thursday, November 03, 2005

Libby's rise to power was part and parcel of the ascendancy of the neo-conservatives to the summits of US policymaking. Libby was a student, protégé, and collaborator with Paul Wolfowitz for over 25 years. Libby along with Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Douglas Feith, Kagan, Cohen, Rubin, Pollack, Chertoff, Fleisher, Kristol, Marc Grossman, Shumsky and a host of other political operators were long term believers and aggressive proponents of a virulently militaristic tendency of Zionism linked with the rightwing Likud Party of Israel. Early in the 1980's, Wolfowitz and Feith were charged with passing confidential documents to Israel, the latter temporarily losing his security clearance.

"The spread of democracy will make the Middle East a safer neighborhood for Israel. An American retreat from Iraq, on the other hand, would only strengthen the terrorists who seek the enslavement of Iraq and the eventual destruction of Israel," said Stephen Hadley in remarks released by the White House.

What drove Krauthammer, a trained psychiatrist, to his verbal fit of rage? Apparently it was an article that appeared in The New Yorker in which Scowcroft criticized the neoconservative worldview and suggested America should take a more realistic approach to its foreign policy formulations.

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

All governments lie as I. F. Stone famously observed, but some governments lie more than others. And the neocon Bush regime serves up whoppers as standard fare every day. Why this propensity to lie? There are many reasons, but it is not widely appreciated that the neocons believe in lying on principle. It is the "noble" thing for the elite to do, for the "vulgar" masses, the "herd" will become ungovernable without such lies. This is the idea of the "noble lie" practiced with such success and boldness by Scooter Libby and his co-conspirators and concocted by the political "philosopher" Leo Strauss whose teachings lie at the core of the neoconservative outlook and agenda, so much so that they are sometimes called "Leocons."

Michael Ledeen, the neoconservative ideologue and veteran of the Iran-Contra scandal, whose Iranian – and Israeli – contacts made him a key go-between in the arms-for-hostages deal, is the Machiavelli of the neocons, the one who ends his polemics with the exhortation "Faster, please!" – a plea to accelerate the pace of "regime change" throughout the Middle East. And he is not just an ideologue, rooting on the sidelines for the "good guys," but an active player, as La Repubblica makes all too clear: he played the key role of facilitator of the various factions with a keen interest in "liberating" Iraq. La Repubblica cites an unnamed U.S. intelligence source:

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

This is the policy actually being conducted by neocons today. That is war, after war, after war in an effort to destroy the economy of the US and force Americans to accept world government. Fortunately, the neocons have failed in Iraq and that could inhibit the opportunity of warfare against other states. The invasions were to establish an imperial occupation, control oil, stop oil from being sold in Euros, to cover up economic failure and to outflank Russia and China. These wars were intended to be the first of many wars - permanent warfare. In this guise control over the populace could be perpetuated. We do not dream these scenarios up. They were spelled out in July 1996, in the paper, "A Clean Break" delivered to then Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu. The authors were Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, Meyrav Wurmser and Charles Fairbanks.

The war against Iraq has polarized Americans before the first shot was fired. And as the war was brought home with nonstop frontline images, the lines between pro- and anti-war have solidified, especially as U.S. and coalition forces began to take casualties in the “post war insurrection”.

An even more dangerous question involves our new, impending conflicts in the Middle East. By what mysterious pattern of thinking could our government, which has made an unmitigated disaster of Iraq, be considering "regime change" in Syria and bombing missions in Iran?

Those who read James Mann's highly underpublicized, but excellent book, The Rise and Fall of the Vulcans, have known about the power that the neo-conservatives (aka Vulcans) wielded in President George W Bush's White House. The indictment of Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, only confirms the essence of that cabal. What is still to come out are its details.

The real reason for nuking Iran, however, is none of the above. It was spelled out with surprising candor in the Pentagon draft document "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" [.pdf] as one of several possible reasons geographic combatant commanders may request presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons:

"To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD."

Total Pageviews

NeoCon Watch

BATR Forum

Congress Owned by UnAmerican Foreign Interests

"Conservatives are accustomed to liberals not understanding the zoology of our movement. But the use and abuse of the term 'neoconservative' has exceeded even the high allowance for cliché and ignorance generally afforded to those who write or talk about conservatism from outside the conservative ant farm. In fact, neoconservative has become a Trojan Horse for vast arsenal of ideological attacks and insinuations. For some it means Jewish conservative. For others it means hawk. A few still think it means squishy conservative or ex-liberal. And a few don't even know what the word means, they just think it makes them sound knowledgeable when they use it."